Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 23058
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
S.R. Krishna Kumar, J
M/S Neospaces – Appellant
Versus
Smt Geetha Shivamurthy – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 3611 of 2023 (GM-CPC)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri. P B Raju
For the Respondents: Sri. K.N. Dayalu
Tenant must deposit arrears and future rent during proceedings for ejectment, as established under contract law and inherent court powers.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 39 Rule 10 - Order directing defendant to deposit arrears of rent and future rent during pendency of suit - The Court highlighted the jural relationship of landlord and tenant established under the lease deed and the requirement for the tenant to comply with rent obligations despite counterclaims. The Court noted it has inherent powers to ensure compliance by the tenant and that past due payments and counterclaims would be determined at trial. (Paras 12-23)
(B) Civil Procedure Code - Inherent powers of the Court - The application of inherent power under Section 151 CPC to direct tenant to deposit admitted rent, protecting the landlord's interests without diminishing rights, as established by precedent. (Paras 13, 14)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for ejectment due to arrears of rent against the defendant, who raised counterclaims of financial loss due to alleged deficiencies in the premises. The trial court ordered the tenant to pay admitted rent arrears and continue future payments during the suit.
Findings of Court:
Impugned trial court order was deemed just and without failure of justice. Order for deposit of admitted rent upheld.
Issues: Whether the application for rent deposit is valid and the court's power to order deposits amidst ongoing disputes.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reinforced tenant obligations regarding rent payments in the absence of explicitly settled counterclaims, emphasizing the importance of protecting landlords' rights during disputes.
Result: Petition disposed of, maintaining trial court order.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of petitioner and respondent's claims regarding rent. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. court's procedure regarding the trial court order. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. assessing the need for future rent deposits amidst ongoing legal proceedings. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. discussion on tenant obligations and court's inherent authority. (Para 12 , 13 , 19 , 20 , 22 , 23) |
| 5. court's rationale on allowed deposits and tenant's liabilities. (Para 14 , 16 , 17) |
ORDER
This petition by the defendant in O.S.No.25270/2021 on the file of the XIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore is directed against the impugned order dated 15.12.2022 whereby the application I.A.No.5 filed by the respondent-plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 10 r/w Section 151 , CPC for a direction to the petitioner-defendant to deposit the arrears of rent and continue to deposit future rent was partly allowed by the Trial Court which directed the petitioner to deposit admitted arrears of rent of Rs.31,82,500/- and also to continue to deposit the admitted monthly rent of Rs.2,70,000/- from 05.02.2023 till disposal of the suit.
2. A perusal of the material will indicate that the respondent-plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the petitioner-defendant for ejectment of arrears of rent, main profits and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable properties. In addition to contesting the said suit, by filing the written statement, petitioner- defendant also put forth a counter claim against the respondent- plaintiff towards alleged loss said to have been caused to the petitioner-defendant on account of the respondent-plaintiff. During the pendency of the suit, the respondent-plaintiff having filed the instant application for a direction to the petitioner and opposed the same, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order partly allowing the said application, aggrieved by which the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.
3. A perusal of the material on record will clearly indicate that the Trial Court has taken into consideration the rival contentions including the pleadings of the parties and material on record and had come to the correct conclusion that the admitted monthly rent was Rs.2,70,000/- per month and at any rate, the petitioner was liable to pay Rs.31,82,500/- from the date of the suit till December 2022 and to continue to pay an admitted monthly rent of Rs.2,70,000/- from 05.02.2023 till disposal of the suit. While arriving at the said conclusion, the Trial Court held as under:
:: ORDERS ON IA NO.5 ::
This is an application filed by the plaintiff under order 39 rule 10 read with section 151 of CPC seeking direction to the defendant to deposit sum of ` 47,83,342/= being the rent, maintenance and GST dues till date and also future rent at the rate of Rs.3 Lakhs per month.
2.The present application was filed at the stage after the matter was posted for plaintiff’s ex parte evidence and when the case was posted for objections and hearing to application filed by defendant for setting aside the orders placing the defendant ex parte.
3.The defendant has filed detailed objections to the present application.
4. I have heard both sides and perused the records of the case.
5.The only point that arises for my consideration is;
Whether the present application deserves to be allowed and defendant should be directed to deposit the amount as sought for in the present IA?
6.My answer to the above point is as per finding for the following;
:: REASONS::
7.The facts in brief are that, the plaintiff has filed the present suit on the premise that, the plaintiff is the landlord and the defendant is the tenant under the plaintiff on monthly rent of :t 2,70,000/= under the lease deed dated 07/02/2019 which was for a period of 5 years with lock in period of 3 years. Pleading that defendant has been irregular in payment of rent and consequently the tenancy has been terminated by legal notice dated 04/11/2020 and defendant has not comp
